↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of person-centred care after hip replacement-a controlled before and after study on the effects of fear of movement and self-efficacy compared to standard care

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Nursing, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evaluation of person-centred care after hip replacement-a controlled before and after study on the effects of fear of movement and self-efficacy compared to standard care
Published in
BMC Nursing, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12912-016-0173-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lars-Eric Olsson, Elisabeth Hansson, Inger Ekman

Abstract

The goal of total hip arthroplasty (THA) is optimal pain relief and a normalized health-related quality of life. Anxious patients describe more pain and more difficulties than non-anxious patients during rehabilitation after THA. The aims of the present study were twofold: (1) to identify vulnerable patients using the general self-efficacy scale (GSES) and the Tampa scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK), and (2) to evaluate if person-centred care including the responses of the instruments made rehabilitation more effective in terms of shortening hospital length of stay. The design of the study was quasi-experimental. Patients scheduled for THA, a control group (n = 138) and an intervention group (n = 128) were consecutively recruited. The intervention was the provision of person-centred care which was designed to reduce the negative effects of low self-efficacy and high levels of pain-related fear of movement. Patients with low GSES in the intervention group had shorter length of stay (LoS) by 1.6 days (95 % CI 0.16-3.15) p-value 0.03. Patients with high TSK in the intervention group had shorter LoS by 2.43 days (95 % CI 0.76-4.12) p-value 0.005. For patients who had both, the reduction of LoS was 2.15 days (95 % CI 0.24-4.04) p-value 0.028. The GSES and the TSK instrument were found useful as tools to provide information to support patients which reduced the LoS by 1.67 days in the whole intervention group (95 % CI 0.72-2.62) p-value 0.001. More importantly, vulnerable patients such as ASA group 3 probably gained the most from the extra support, they had a reduction with 6.78 days (95 % CI 2.94-10.62) p-value 0.001.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 97 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 15%
Student > Bachelor 15 15%
Researcher 7 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 7%
Lecturer 3 3%
Other 16 16%
Unknown 34 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 28 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 12%
Psychology 7 7%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Sports and Recreations 3 3%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 34 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 September 2016.
All research outputs
#12,670,959
of 22,888,307 outputs
Outputs from BMC Nursing
#269
of 752 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,617
of 330,063 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Nursing
#5
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,888,307 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 752 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,063 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.